Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices

    By Mary Bruce
    @marykbruce

    Jake Tapper
    @jaketapper
    Oct 1, 2012 9:17pm
    At White House Request, Lockheed Martin Drops Plan to Issue Layoff Notices
    Email 138 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

    Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today — one with political overtones — and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.

    Lockheed, one of the biggest employers in the key battleground state of Virginia, previously warned it would have to issue notices to employees, required by law, due to looming defense cuts set to begin to take effect after Jan. 2 because of the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — the so-called Super-committee, which was created to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.

    Such massive layoffs could have threatened Obama’s standing in the state he won in 2008 and is hoping to carry again this November.

    On Friday, the Obama administration reiterated that federal contractors should not issue notices to workers based on “uncertainty” over the pending $500 billion reduction in Pentagon spending that will occur unless lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, negotiations over which will almost definitely not begin until after the election.

    Contractors had been planning to send out notices because of the WARN Act — Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act — which according to the Department of Labor requires “most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs.”

    In a statement Friday, GOP Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte accused Obama of putting “his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. … Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs.”

    In July the Labor Department issued legal guidance making clear that federal contractors are not required to provide layoff notices 60 days in advance of the potential Jan. 2 sequestration order, and that doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act.

    In Friday’s memo, the Office of Management and Budget reiterated that notice, urging agencies’ contracting officials and CFOs to “minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices.”

    The guidance issued Friday told contractors that if the automatic cuts happen and contractors lay off employees the government will cover certain liability and litigation costs in the event the contractor is later sued because it hadn’t provided adequate legal warning to its employees, but only if the contractor abides by the administration’s notice and refrains from warning employees now.

    After “careful review” Lockheed announced today that it will abide by the administration’s guidance.

    “We will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year,” Lockheed announced in a written statement. “The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan. The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.

    “We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry. We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation’s challenges,” Lockheed said.

    – Jake Tapper and Mary Bruce
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    For the record. The issue on Sequestration is still VERY much an issue! If sequestration goes through, DFW, along with every other city strong in DoD $$ will feel the it!

    Originally posted by Taya Kyle, American Gun
    There comes a time when honest debate, serious diplomatic efforts, and logical arguments have been exhausted and only men and women willing to take up arms against evil will suffice to save the freedom of a nation or continent.

    Comment


    • #3
      I truly feel sorry for the workers involved, but I say... let it burn....

      It's been a long time coming, and the spending cannot continue without an even bigger hit to the economy later on.

      The piper will be paid at some point, and its gonna hurt.

      Comment


      • #4
        The idea of budget cuts is not in question. It is HOW the cuts are being applied that is the issue. Read the website a bit http://act.secondtonone.org/6059/stop-sequestration/
        Originally posted by Taya Kyle, American Gun
        There comes a time when honest debate, serious diplomatic efforts, and logical arguments have been exhausted and only men and women willing to take up arms against evil will suffice to save the freedom of a nation or continent.

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree that defense should be hit last, as it is one of the few things that the federal government SHOULD be running and it should ALWAYS be strong, but I just don't see a meaningful conversation on the hill about actual cuts to ANYTHING (if it falls within the liberal gravy train) until the voters DEMAND it, and that won't happen until it hurts.

          Half of the voters in this country still believe that "Bama Money" still grows on trees and that the "rich" just need to give more....

          Obviously, with the election results, this perception will not change until a kick in the ass happens.... so BRING ON THE PAIN!
          Last edited by Gargamel; 12-26-2012, 01:03 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm assuming you don't work in the DoD industry? Those of us that do, especially ones with families to feed, are NOT looking forward to "the pain".
            Originally posted by Taya Kyle, American Gun
            There comes a time when honest debate, serious diplomatic efforts, and logical arguments have been exhausted and only men and women willing to take up arms against evil will suffice to save the freedom of a nation or continent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Darren M View Post
              I'm assuming you don't work in the DoD industry? Those of us that do, especially ones with families to feed, are NOT looking forward to "the pain".
              I guess you missed the part where I said that I truly felt for those that are affected. And if there is a way to do this with a minimal effect on our industry\economy, I'm all for it. But we are all going to pay for how the federal government has been free wheeling it for the past few decades.

              Nothing is free, and to be honest, I personally felt the kick in the ass when the bottom dropped out the first time, and I still am not back to where I was professionally or economically.... So I can truly relate...

              I just don't see any other way out of the debt that we are in except for severe cuts in spending.

              Where\how much is where the debate should be....

              I'm not an a-hole, just a realist.....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Darren M View Post
                I'm assuming you don't work in the DoD industry? Those of us that do, especially ones with families to feed, are NOT looking forward to "the pain".
                I feel for you. I am surprised someone hasn't already piped in with the callous "if you don't like it, find another job" or the standard "you knew the dangers when you took the job". It's going to take a BIG sacrifice from all of us to get our country back in order. People think they can ignore the problem because it isn't currently impacting them. Once things go bad, we will ALL feel it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Please do not read any emotion in my post. I wrote it as black/white as this text. The main problem w/ sequestration, as I see it, is that DoD is taking 1/2 the hit. While all other programs are sharing the other 1/2.
                  Originally posted by Taya Kyle, American Gun
                  There comes a time when honest debate, serious diplomatic efforts, and logical arguments have been exhausted and only men and women willing to take up arms against evil will suffice to save the freedom of a nation or continent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sorry... the defense industry needs to take a cut as well. While we need strong defense in this country we often over pay for it heavily. Civillian contracting companies RAPE us on their contracts plain and simple. While I agree going to an active warzone is hazardous, not everyone out there needs to make $100k+. Our military members out there dont.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 8mpg View Post
                      Sorry... the defense industry needs to take a cut as well. While we need strong defense in this country we often over pay for it heavily. Civillian contracting companies RAPE us on their contracts plain and simple. While I agree going to an active warzone is hazardous, not everyone out there needs to make $100k+. Our military members out there dont.
                      The only reason we need those contractors is because Clinton cut the military so bad that it can not complete the missions by itself anymore. The Army was cut from 18 Divisions to 12, the navy cut from 546 ships to 380, Air Force went from 76- 50 squadrons... all in all 286,000 service members were cut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The DFW will take a MASSIVE hit with this bill. I work several of the aeronautics companies and they are telling me there will be massive layoffs. Plus you have companies like Craft that will take a huge hit. Once these jobs are cut the spending in the area will drop and less people will move here for jobs. This is a huge economic hit.

                        Contract companies do the things the standard forces cannot do or is not economical. $100k is a lot but it is a lot cheaper than sending our troops to do it and support them when you consider all the cost involved. The contact companies know this and charge accordingly.

                        One of the areas the US is lacking is training foreign troops. If I remember correctly there are only 3 groups that are trained to train foreign troops (US special forces, Oklahoma national guard, and cannot remember the third). SEALS, Rangers, and Delta have been forced into doing this when they should be doing their missions. It cost millions to train a single Special Forces soldier, if you can find a contractor to do the training at the same level with Special Forces you save a ton of money.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Would you guys rather have a cut back defense or bankrupt/dd
                          Depression? Everything has to be cut whether you like it or not. Deficit spending is killing this country

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would rather cut off the freeloaders. I am not an accountant by any means but I think we need to look at cutting welfare before we cut defense. Defense cutting may need to be cut but we need to look at other areas first.

                            War is changing, I don't think anyone wants to fight the US directly like Iraq did in the first gulf war. We need to adapt, we may not need as many tanks but we need more aircraft and special operations troops to fight these covert wars.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yeah, EVERYONE is going to feel budget cuts and everyone is going to have some level of adversity to some of them. As no4njnk said though, what about cutting the weeds as opposed to just trimming the hedges?
                              Originally posted by MR EDD
                              U defend him who use's racial slurs like hes drinking water.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X